17-35 repaired

[Reschsmooth]

After 2 months in the 'shop', we finally got our 17-35 back, and, it appears, as good as new. I must say that it is a great feeling to be able to grasp this little monster. For quite a while, we were basically limited to primes (not using the 80-200 mm that often), and, whilst there are many positives about this, I didn't like having such a gap between 20 & 50 mm. Further, I found the 20mm showed significantly more distortion than the 17-35 at the same focal length.

Next on the list will be either the 28-70, 24-70 or the 35-70 push/pull (to save on dollars). From what I have read, the 35-70 lens is more than capable, and about a quarter of the cost of the other two (for a second hand version).

[Jeko70]

Good news for you.

I love my 17-35 and I can image how did you feel without it.
In my opinion the way is Af-s 24-70.

OT
I got a 35-70 bought from a Dslrusers that i'm not using if you want I can give it away for a couple of hundred.

fab

[aim54x]

I vote the 24-70!!! I love this lens!!

[Reschsmooth]

I vote the 24-70!!!

Perhaps, but it is 4-7 times better than the 35-70 f2.8 (notwithstanding the inherent risks associated with buying second hand)?

Fab, I will send you a PM soon regarding the 35-70. It is a f/2.8, correct?

[Jeko70]

Yep, AF 35-70 f2.8
Great lens but old concept.
Just to let you know the AF 35-70 it is not AF-S 28-70 or 24-70.
More or less like the difference between an AF 80-200 and AF-S 80-200---70-200.

I'm not in hurry to sell it so take your time!

[Reschsmooth]

Yep, AF 35-70 f2.8
Great lens but old concept.
Just to let you know the AF 35-70 it is not AF-S 28-70 or 24-70.
More or less like the difference between an AF 80-200 and AF-S 80-200---70-200.

I'm not in hurry to sell it so take your time!

I understand it is also the push/pull variety, and not AF-S - I have the 80-200 AF (non AF-S) and, whilst it hunts a bit, has not really cost me too many shots. Sure, the AF-S (as in on my 17-35) is fantastic!

[Reschsmooth]

Taking my deliberations further, I am weighing up between the 35-70, 28-70 and 24-70. Given my understanding, the following is a list of the considerations I have, well, considered:

1. I have not overly missed this focal length, and have a 50mm which provides a small pontoon between my gap of 35-80. That said, I sometimes find 35 way too short and 85 too long (two lenses I love and use most often).
2. I shoot old film cameras which means G lenses can't be used. This does not specifically preclude me getting the 24-70 to use on the current D200, f90x and the yet to be acquired F5 & F6.
3. The 35-70 is roughly a quarter of the price of the others.
4. The 35-70 has to be bought second hand. However, I would trust a forum member more than an ebayer in terms of hidden truths.
5. From what I have read, the 35-70 and 28-70 are similar in optical quality at the longer end.
6. The 35-70 is push/pull and has a rotating front element, plus much smaller filter thread (step-ups an option here), meaning it is quite different to the other lenses I most often use, apart from the nifty-50.
7. The 28/24-70 are AF-S. I have used Stubbsy's 28-70 and the AF speed is tremendous.
8. See 3 above.
9. The 24-70 has nanomatechnical coating, meaning it stays warmer in winter.
10. The 35-70 looks less cool than the other two.
11. Re 3 & 8 above, I can more readily purchase the 35-70, whereas the other two would require a more dedicated savings plan, and they would not, necessarily be top of the list of photographic toys to be purchased.

Any additional musings?

[radar]

Patrick,

given your points 1, 3 and 11 it would be clear to get the 35-70. IMHO. It is a great lens. Get it now. If you happen not to like it, sell it, it is good lens that others would buy, I would at the price that Fab is offering to you. The 24-70 will be on Nikon's price list for a while so you can always start a saving plan to get it at a later stage.

Cheers,

André

[Jeko70]

Patrick,
taking in mind your consideration....really close to mine....I'll say so:

I used the 35-70 mostly with films on my F100 but since I moved 99% to Digital it's sitting on my shelf.
I'm happy with it but the 28-70 is not just a step above....it's more!

Now I want complicate your life You might have another solution.
Get a Tokina 28-70 or 28-80 f2.8
Tokina is a good alternative, Hoya glasses, metal built and f2.8
In my opinion at f2.8 is a little bit too soft but if closed to f4 it will give you great results.

I have both and if you want just try them let me know and with pleasure and not with any pressure.
I said I'm not selling to get money so I'm using with film, not so often now, but I like to see them on my shelf....nostalgia is a bad thing.....  PS:
Just to let you know If I have to sell one i'll sell 35-70 because the 28-70 doesn't work properly, the lock AF auto-manual is faulty and it works only in AF auto so I'm not selling it.
But you can play with it.

[Reschsmooth]

Thanks guys.

Jeko, I might take you up on the offer - whilst I am a bit of a brand snob, I am open to alternatives.

[tasadam]

I particularly like the minimum focus distance of my 24-70. Oh, and how sharp it is, and how bright it is, and how fast it is, and.......